All eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it is set to deliver the judgment it reserved on the appeals seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The Supreme Court slated Thursday, October 26, for judgement on the appeals filed by the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Abubakar Atiku, and Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi.
The judgement will lay to rest the legal fireworks over the 25 February presidential election.
The Nation reports five-member PEPC led by Haruna Tsammani had on 6 September dismissed petitions filed by the presidential candidates for lacking in merit and affirmed the election of President Tinubu.
Displeased with the judgment, the duo approached the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the judgement of the lower court in their favour.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had at Monday’s proceedings, dismissed the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), after its lawyers withdrew the case.
Here are key things to know about the judgement:
1. Atiku’s notice of appeal had canvassed 35 grounds, contending that the PEPC erred in law. Specifically, Atiku asked the Supreme Court to set aside the whole findings and conclusions of the PEPC on the grounds that they did not represent the true picture of the grounds of his petition.
2. Obi, on his part, through his lead counsel, Levi Uzoukwu (SAN), also prayed the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement of the PEPC. Obi premised his appeal on 51 grounds, arguing that the Presidential Election Petition Court’s judgement declining to nullify Tinubu’s election occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
3. Atiku sought to breathe fresh life into his appeal by tendering President Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University, while Obi stuck to the evidence he had submitted to the presidential election court.
4. Obi contended that the five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court led by Haruna Tsammani “erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion” when it dismissed his case. Obi’s lawyer said the court erroneously ruled that Obi’s case failed to establish the polling stations where electoral malpractices took place during the February presidential election.
5. The lawyer also said the lower court’s conclusions caused a “grave miscarriage of justice” when it held that Obi did not identify the specific number of votes he polled at polling units where he accused INEC and Tinubu of suppressing votes. Arguing further, the appellant alleged that Tinubu was not qualified to vie for the election on account of improper nomination of his vice-presidential pick.
6. Obi’s lawyer said: “The court below overlooked that the respondents failed to disprove the evidence of substantial non-compliance adduced by the petitioners.” The appellant, in the filing, told the Supreme Court that the lower court ignored evidence that proved how Tinubu was indicted and fined $4,600, in the U.S.
